I highly recommend reading Danusha V. Goska’s comprehensive report on the recent SEEC Shroud of Turin International Conference and Symposium. Whether you share Danusha’s conviction in the Shroud’s authenticity or, like me, approac it with skepticism, the report offers valuable insight. Both of us arrived at our respective positions only after decades of study and careful consideration.
Danusha wrote:
Hi, Dan. I hope all is well with you. A piece by me addressing the conference is at the links below. One is Front Page; the other is my blog. Same article at both sites.
One section of Danusha’s write-up particularly caught my attention—and I couldn’t agree more. For decades, I’ve felt that the Shroud of Turin has been burdened by a misguided hope: that it might one day serve as definitive proof of the Resurrection, or act as a persuasive tool for converting skeptics. While understandable from a faith perspective, this expectation has, in my view, at times skewed the research landscape. It has tempted some investigators—consciously or not—to frame their findings in ways that serve apologetic aims rather than strictly objective inquiry. The result is that certain studies, however well-intentioned, have not been as impartial or methodologically rigorous as they should have been. For those of us who value both faith and reason, this is regrettable, because the Shroud’s real historical and scientific significance can only be appreciated when examined without the pressure to “prove” anything beyond the evidence itself.
2. EVANGELIZATION. IF AUTHENTIC, DOES THE SHROUD “PROVE” CHRISTIANITY?
Some invite others to contemplate the Shroud and thereby become Christians. I am not in that camp. I hope that people come to Christianity through the church, through the scriptures, and through Jesus. “Preach always; use words when necessary,” is an old saying. Christians attract others to Christ by living out Christ’s example. Even if new carbon dating dated the Shroud to 2,000 years before present, those who reject Christ would still reject the Shroud. They would say that someone “faked it up and flogged it” 2,000 years ago.
Yves Delage was an agnostic. Barrie Schwortz was Jewish. British art historian Thomas de Wesselow is an agnostic. All have advanced convincing arguments for the Shroud’s authenticity. They believe that the Shroud was produced through some natural process. They may be correct. Belief in the Shroud does not equal belief in Jesus as Christ.
“Even if new carbon dating dated the Shroud to 2,000 years before present, those who reject Christ would still reject the Shroud. They would say that someone “faked it up and flogged it” 2,000 years ago.”
Yes it is true that its hard to change a person’s mind and attitude. Even when juridical science has proved the C14 dating to be unreliable and should be dismissed as evidence there are those that continue to hang on to the middle ages theory.
The value of the Shroud is that some people need knowledge to help make a decision. The more knowledge the less faith that is required. For instance, the fact that the world is a globe does not require much faith but if there had been less knowledge then there would have been a need for more faith.
That the Shroud is authentic means that those who scream that Jesus is a myth and that there is a sky fairy will be exposed for what they are … namely people who make decisions not on genuine science but on the same basis that they choose the football team that they follow.
There are some so locked in on the middle ages date who can’t accept that the C14 date has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be wrong. They decline to change despite the evidence that shows them to be wrong.
The religious faith in the C14 date is very observable as the overwhelming evidence against the date is rebelled against by the continued support of a date that is unreliable.
Atheists contend that science and religion are two different things. The atheists ignore that the science of Religion is well established. Yes, religion is scientifically proved in two instances, namely:
i. There is a spiritual world; and
ii. Jesus has something to do with God.
The world’s collective knowledge has established two foundational elements that prove the existence of God that prove beyond reasonable doubt that religion is science. Namely,
i. 86 % of the world’s population have concluded that there is a spiritual realm.
ii. Over 70% of the world have concluded that Jesus and God are related.
To omit those proven scientific facts from a scientific analysis amounts to an unscientific method.
Applying those two scientific facts to the Shroud indicates that the Shroud is evidence of a miracle:
i. An image was formed on the cloth when that image was not able to be produced by modern technology
ii. That the image that is unique in the world was produced of Jesus not just anyone but the person recognised by science as being connected to God.
“I undertook a rigorous reexamination of the facts.”
Its clear with the new introduction of the juridical science method of examination of the facts that a rigorous re-examination of the facts requires that the middle ages date be rejected.
The multiple breaches of protocols continually recorded and argued by such as Carbon and Marino was never previously given the high level of credibility it deserved. Had that been done then the C14 dating would have been immediately recognised as unreliable. The withholding of the test results should also have been a reason to not accept the C14 dates before full disclosure.
A rigorous re-examination of the facts needs to recognise that scientific protocols must be meticulously obeyed. In Barrie Schwortz’s home state of Colorado after his passing away the police are meticulously examining a forensic scientist’s method to understand if the scientist meticulously followed protocols.
Come on Dan!
Will R. , having posted on 3 consecutive days, is entitled to a reply!/
Dear Colin
thank you very much.
Dan makes it clear that:
“After studying the Shroud of Turin for nearly 25 years—much of that time arguing it was probably Jesus’ burial shroud—I undertook a rigorous reexamination of the facts. This process compelled me to change my position.”
Well after the juridical science method was introduced to the world here on this website its probably time that the pendulum swung the other way for Dan and that he re-examines his position.
Maybe Dan’s just seriously reconsidering especially when the juridical science method explains how to make reasonable decisions and how to exclude unreasonable evidence.
The method can be viewed on Guy Powell’s YouTube website https://www.youtube.com/@Guy.R.Powell.ShroudofTurin
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to respond to my otherwise routine reply.
What a shame that you have yet to establish yourself as a model for others (Dan especially!).
Dear Colin
Thanks.
That’s because Dan had no answer to the argument for “reasonableness” that I laid out in “Déjà Vu A ll Over Again: Beyond Reasonable Doubt” and “Legal Mumbo Jumbo and the Shroud”.
The newness of the argument and my plain language style with very rare use of adjectives and adverbs and lack of figurative explanations is on point.
I’ve got to walk the dog, sweep the front walk—there just aren’t enough hours in the day. And honestly, there’s no such thing as “the juridical science method.” Was it announced to the world? I must have missed it—along with everyone else. The news of Mrs. Smith’s 2nd grade class pumpkin-face contest at Hartsdale Elementary probably got more coverage.
Dear Dan
Thank you for your response:
You state:
“And honestly, there’s no such thing as “the juridical science method.” Was it announced to the world? I must have missed it—along with everyone else. “
Juridical science is used throughout the Universities of the world and within the Courts of the World on a daily basis. Most people have heard the saying “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”; … Yes most people have missed it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Juridical_Science
Your website has brought clarity to the world when the juridical science method was introduced as a world first to assess the Shroud evidence when the same juridical science has been used for centuries in other matters.
Oh, Good, Since Juridical science is used throughout the Universities of the world and within the Courts of the World on a daily basis, please send me some links in peer reviewed journals, university websites (real edu links) and mainstream media outlets. That will allow me to keep this thread open. Else I will close it and when you provide the links for me to review I will consider allowing you to post. Am I clear?
The idea that a criminal from the middle ages would add extinct pollen and Jerusalem dust etc. is “unreasonable”.
Watch at the 19:00 min mark where the investigating forensic scientist (detective) makes the comment on the hiding of DNA by a criminal before the science of DNA was available.